Search results

eh, yeah...the quote doesn't work fully. i'm in a rush before work. i'll prob have to use an OT example to get something actually applicable.

ah yes, because of course, the muslim community as a whole has always been so quick to help on that. which is why there's nothing like pesky claims with little factual accuracy making arguements like 9/11 was done by jews.

simpson_freak, firstly, you are in no way qualified to say that as you have not EVEN SEEN all 12, yet you talk in absolutes. second, that is in no way a use of occam's razor. for starters, you're then ENTIRELY ignoring the article that was ran in the paper along with the cartoons. i'm beginning...

thats the idea of the heckler's veto. the idea that the threats someone else will make would silence free speech

yeah, but see...in the same context, let me sum up this discussion starwarsy "Islamic fundamentalists are evil!" "in my opinion danish cartoonists are evil" "well, then you are lost!" don't quote star wars agsint me. i know fandom well beyond anyone can imagine :-D

simpson_freak, if you want to talk about content of the cartoons, then, please go see all 12 so that we can discuss this on the same level here, as at present the rest of us are more informed on their content than you. and see, the link between islam and terrorism was not created by these...

still don't see why, if its the terrorism assosciation issue, that the greatest outcry isn't against THEM

soo....its ok to publish them in something with the paper but nto in the paper itself? and see, they were printed because the Danish paper felt that they made a point. they've been reprinted for sake of free speech, because they are newsworth, and to reinforce that point the Danish paper was...

since you keep talking about the cartoons being designed to label all muslims, please explain that, as really only 3 of them seem to be about terrorism in the first place. you seem to be generalising a lot. also given that they feature only mohommad that thats not saying its all muslims are...

first, real friends will only say something if you're putting yourself in a bad situation (i mean, like, psychologically detrimental relationships and stuff)...otherwise they shouldn't be saying stuff if they are your friends second, with "but the ones my 'enemies' say that I won't be able to...

next time someone says that, i propose the responce: "if women wouldn't struggle so much during rape, we wouldn't have to hold you down" teaches em a lesson

here's why the attitude that they have to be published. firstly, they are newsorthy at this point. thanks to the protests and riots. second, its because of the reason they WOULDN'T be published. they're not getting published because they're not good, or something like that, or by the editor's...

the idea that one is SUPPOSED to be chivalrous is definitly gone at this point. eroded by both sides, i'd say.

does this mean everyone protesting against the danish gov't for allowing a paper freedom of speech aren't muslims?

ooc, are you referring to getting Hitler out of power via WW2, or the mistakes of the appeasements before WW2 began?

the flaw is dangerous primarily because of globilisation. its a culture clash. The western world has a general view of allowing freedom of speech, to the point of criticising/insulting others, which, as we are seeing, doesn't go well with islamic countries. also, explain to me how the...

yeah, thats not exactly a scientific term in this case

religions tend to have it included in them that criticism is always offensive. just ask Martin Luther. and see, all the past attempts to say "hey, why are you not differentiating yourselves from islamic fundamentalism" seems to not be working. plus, the main issue here isn't if the cartoons were...

feel like clarifying the analogy there? ok, and well, how about the fact that, since i, and others, find the idea of censorship and limiting free speech offensive, which fits your definition of insult there, then it would, in fact, within your theory, be illegal to have that law in the first...

except, within my view, you SHOULDN'T be forced to apologise. you've got every right to be a bigoted jerk. and anyone else has the right to call you on it. and second, how do you draw such a subjective line as insult vs criticise? i don't think that society should be ran by the heckler's veto.